"According to the EU study, the top-end G7 energy bracket would not allow for a graphics card to have more than 320GB/s memory bandwidth between the GPU and its frame buffer.Both AMD and Nvidia's high-end graphics cards already get close to 290GB/s, meaning that the next generation cards are likely to come close to or surpass that figure."

I think the problem is deeper then idle. AMD wouldn't panic for nothing if DIRECTIVE 2009/125/EC wasn't an issue.

"There are three key issues that the industry believes have the potential to create trade barriers or restrict market access for a limited number of high-end products for use in specialised industry segments such as the health sector, financial services and engineering modeling. Consequently, industry requests that the proposal be amended as per the recommendations in this paper."

To me it seem the EU regulation would stop high end GPU from being legal.

This might be a stunt to get people to talk about the problem, because this is ridiculous. But it still shine a very bad light on the European union process.

Sigh (seriously, you wanted to to go through en entire thread to find the 2 post that are half way meaningful??)

Again, here is the industry response...

"There are three key issues that the industry believes have the potential to create trade barriers or restrict market access for a limited number of high-end products for use in specialised industry segments such as the health sector, financial services and engineering modeling. Consequently, industry requests that the proposal be amended as per the recommendations in this paper."

I haven't read any articles yet or the Directive, i will do it later, but at first glance this is ridiculous. I mean really? Have all the energy wasting problems been solved and the last thing that needs to be fixed is the small number of PCs sporting ultra high end video cards? This is BS.

Edit: after reading the comments from various sources it would seem that the EU is just trying to divide computers and namely video cards into power classes (efficiency?). So all that would change for the final product that you would buy from EU would be a lable stating to which power catergory the respective products belongs to.......So no harm done actually?

nVidia video drivers FAIL, click for more infoDisclaimer: All answers and suggestions are provided by an enthusiastic amateur and are therefore without warranty either explicit or implicit. Basically you use my suggestions at your own risk.

morphine wrote:The article is FUD - Nordichardware pulled a 320Gb/s number out of nowhere and ran with that. The PDF they link to is a study.

The author did respond iirc in the comments to a simillar question and he mentioned that the study wasn't the source of the article, rather it was an inside information coming directly from AMD (id est a leak), information that is not yet available to the public concerning future changes in this matter.

Apparently the info he got from AMD was that in the near future, the law will establish strict deadlines for manufacturers to comply with the requirments regarding power consumption and because of that the next generation of cards might be compromised. But that's debatable....again i haven't read the law or the study but from what folks say in the comments, UE's intention is actually just to make PC OEMs and some components fit into different power classes (like fridges or washing machines).

As i understand it, it's just an effort to make people interested in buying more efficient (well, less energy hungry rather) PC hardware in order to reduce electricity consumption. As we all know the great unwashed doesn't read reviews like us to find out the power consumption of a specific product, so a label stating the power class of a product (from A to let's say F, idk the range yet) would be far better for the consumer as it would be easy and fast to understand.

As for the 320GB/s bandwidth, from what commenters say it's just the higher limit for products to fit in the highest power hungry class, anything above wouldn't get a rating indicating to the consumer that they need to accept high electricity bills in order to use the hardware. Also strangely enough, some said that this applies only for when the video card is in idle mode......so that pretty much negates the alledged negative impact on video cards.

Why? Well because for years now, during idle or even low load, graphic cards underclock both the GPU and the GDDR memory automagically, so there is no video card in existance (that i know of) that could possibly have 320GB/s bandwidth during idle with stock BIOS (or stock settings).

nVidia video drivers FAIL, click for more infoDisclaimer: All answers and suggestions are provided by an enthusiastic amateur and are therefore without warranty either explicit or implicit. Basically you use my suggestions at your own risk.

sschaem wrote:Like someone said "Whats next, they will require F1 car to reach 35MPG next season ?"

That wouldn't be a bad idea. It would make F1 more interesting.

Actually the proposed 2014 F1 regulations have both a maximum fuel flow rate limit and a total race fuel mass limit. It works out at quite a bit less than 35mpg however.

Those F1 engineers are very bright and creative. I've said for ages they should allow them any engines they can invent as long as they can prove it is safe (including crash test), and they start the cars with X joules of fuel at the start of the race. In the first year X is equivalent to the current full tank of gas then every year reduce X by 5%. The solutions for that would likely solve the world's energy problem within a decade.

Similarly here, I don't have a problem with them limiting the amount of energy in a computer system. Limiting the bus bandwidth may be a consequence initially but someone will just invent a novel way to get the bandwidth down the bus in a more energy efficient manor and we'll be off to the races again.

notfred wrote:The solutions for that would likely solve the world's energy problem within a decade.

Or just slow the cars down.

notfred wrote:Limiting the bus bandwidth may be a consequence initially but someone will just invent a novel way to get the bandwidth down the bus in a more energy efficient manor and we'll be off to the races again.

You are aware that there is a underlying physical reality that may not be surmountable by human ingenuity?

We call them the "laws" of thermodynamics, but it's not like humanity passed them.

notfred wrote:Limiting the bus bandwidth may be a consequence initially but someone will just invent a novel way to get the bandwidth down the bus in a more energy efficient manor and we'll be off to the races again.

You are aware that there is a underlying physical reality that may not be surmountable by human ingenuity?

We call them the "laws" of thermodynamics, but it's not like humanity passed them.

I doubt we're near that limit yet. We'll probably need a radical change (e.g. move to an optical bus) at some point though.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

MrJP wrote:Actually the proposed 2014 F1 regulations have both a maximum fuel flow rate limit and a total race fuel mass limit. It works out at quite a bit less than 35mpg however.

Those F1 engineers are very bright and creative. I've said for ages they should allow them any engines they can invent as long as they can prove it is safe (including crash test), and they start the cars with X joules of fuel at the start of the race. In the first year X is equivalent to the current full tank of gas then every year reduce X by 5%. The solutions for that would likely solve the world's energy problem within a decade.

Similarly here, I don't have a problem with them limiting the amount of energy in a computer system. Limiting the bus bandwidth may be a consequence initially but someone will just invent a novel way to get the bandwidth down the bus in a more energy efficient manor and we'll be off to the races again.

Doubtful. There comes a point where you get diminishing returns and you have to start cutting meat from the bone. Or more specifically, you have to start eliminating significant weight from the vehicle, to the point where your trade-off becomes safety vs. economy.

BIF wrote:NASCAR should host Prius Races on Sundays! The goal: To see who can go the farthest on a half US gallon of fuel (64 ounces; about the same as a Super Big Gulp) and yet still finish before Christmas.

On second thought, all car racing is boring to me. I would rather watch my fingernails grow.

Can fingernails be overclocked?

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

Seems like one of two things would happen: either they would re-write the laws for higher end video cards and CPU's to be exempt (they are a high margin product for the makers afterall) or they would levy some sort of "luxry tax" on the products like they do with the gas-guzzler tax for cars.

Arclight wrote:... Why? Well because for years now, during idle or even low load, graphic cards underclock both the GPU and the GDDR memory automagically, so there is no video card in existance (that i know of) that could possibly have 320GB/s bandwidth during idle with stock BIOS (or stock settings).

The classification is probably based on the peak bandwidth, i.e. when the card is NOT at idle.

That said, I mostly agree with you. Nothing I've seen has flat out stated that more powerful cards would be banned outright. Until we can get clarification, this is all just hysteria and speculation.

Side note: In the (IMO) unlikely event that high-end cards do get outlawed in the EU, I could see it leading to a surge in popularity of SLI/CrossFire systems. Which will be less energy efficient than a single more powerful card. Unintended consequences...

ShadowEyez wrote:Seems like one of two things would happen: either they would re-write the laws for higher end video cards and CPU's to be exempt (they are a high margin product for the makers afterall) or they would levy some sort of "luxry tax" on the products like they do with the gas-guzzler tax for cars.

Yup. If they want to encourage energy efficiency, taxing the products that are deemed less efficient is a more sensible approach than banning them outright.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

My dream for F1 comes from the Can-Am days of '67-'72. No real rules (other than safety requirements) and run what you brung. I have to think that the Porsche 917 turboPanzers would still be competitive.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

My dream for F1 comes from the Can-Am days of '67-'72. No real rules (other than safety requirements) and run what you brung. I have to think that the Porsche 917 turboPanzers would still be competitive.

back in the day when we didn't know as much a "run what you brung" made for very interesting racing, privateers stood a chance of winning despite the odds but those days of garage wonders are all done now.

friend of mine's overstuffed kid won a championship in cart racing last year despite his laws of physics limitations, drove the other parents crazy and they demanded his engine be torn down 4 times for inspection, he didn't win often (once) but was always in the top 4 (several 2nd's and thirds) & finished every race which was a credit to the way his dad built his car, no other racer could make the same claim.

when I drop by his house and see the photo of his son sitting on his car with the championship trophy, it just looks so wrong.... c'est la vie I guess.

their was no money in that series.... at least no radical amounts, if their was some real money being applied he'd have no chance whatsoever and would have finished last in every race given he scaled 2X's heavier than his nearest competition.

I haven't seen the race, so this is complete and total speculation, but it could also be that he was taught how to drive well, better than the other kids. The driver is more important than the car. This has been proven repeatedly.

Locally in autocross here, there is this couple. They're relatively non-descript, slightly overweight, pale, average-looking Americans. I believe they're both engineers. They are nice folks, but from appearances, totally unremarkable. She also happens to be the years-in-a-row fastest woman in America in autocross. He's almost as fast.

Buub wrote:I haven't seen the race, so this is complete and total speculation, but it could also be that he was taught how to drive well, better than the other kids. The driver is more important than the car. This has been proven repeatedly.

Locally in autocross here, there is this couple. They're relatively non-descript, slightly overweight, pale, average-looking Americans. I believe they're both engineers. They are nice folks, but from appearances, totally unremarkable. She also happens to be the years-in-a-row fastest woman in America in autocross. He's almost as fast.

This.

A great driver can make a "slow" car go around a track amazingly quickly. A poor driver can do the opposite with an amazingly fast car.

Guys, let's please get back on topic. Car analogies never worked that great for IT stuff.

So how about it, are there any updates regarding the issue? Is it really going to affect cards at load or only during idle?

nVidia video drivers FAIL, click for more infoDisclaimer: All answers and suggestions are provided by an enthusiastic amateur and are therefore without warranty either explicit or implicit. Basically you use my suggestions at your own risk.